United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO
FILE BY FAX AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO
SERVE PARTIES ELECTRONICALLY; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
THAT THE DISTRICT COURT DENY PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO
PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
RICHARD L. PUGLISI, Magistrate Judge.
February 16, 2016, Plaintiff Clifford Ray Hackett filed a
document entitled "Motions" asking for "free
process, " leave to file by fax, and leave to serve
parties electronically. ECF No. 2. Although Plaintiff refers
to a request for "free process, " the Court
construes Plaintiff's request as an application to
proceed without prepayment of fees. The Court finds these
matters suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant
to Local Rule 7.2(d). For the reasons discussed below, the
Court GRANTS Plaintiff's request for leave to file by
fax, DENIES Plaintiff's request for leave to serve
parties electronically, and FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that the
district court DENY Plaintiff's application to proceed
without prepayment of fees and DISMISS his Complaint with
leave to amend.
Complaint, filed February 16, 2016, alleges that Defendant
Red Guahan Bus violated the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Â§ 12101 et seq., by
"failing to add wheelchair lifts" and preventing
access to disabled persons. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff indicates
that he is a United States citizen and his mailing address is
in Hawaii. Id . Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
"owns a commercial business worldwide." Id
. Plaintiff's Complaint lists Defendant's mailing
address as 117 Guerrero St. Tamuning, Guam. Id .
Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant requests seeking
leave to proceed without prepayment of fees, file by fax, and
serve parties electronically. ECF No. 2.
Plaintiff's Request for Leave to File by Fax is GRANTED.
requests leave to file by fax as a reasonable accommodation
due to the fact that he is deaf and blind. ECF No. 2. The
Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for this
accommodation and GRANTS Plaintiff's request for leave to
file by fax.
each fax filing, Plaintiff must include a separate cover
sheet that states the case name, the docket number, the title
of the attached filing, and the number of pages faxed.
Plaintiff must also comply with the requirements of Local
Plaintiff's Request for Leave to Serve Parties
Electronically is DENIED.
further requests leave to serve parties electronically as a
reasonable accommodation. ECF No. 2. Local Rule 100.2.2(1)
provides that "[a]ny person appearing pro se may not
utilize electronic filing without leave of the court, which
decision rests in the discretion of the assigned district or
magistrate judge." LR100.2.2(1). Plaintiff does not make
any argument or provide any information supporting his
request for leave to serve parties electronically. ECF No. 2.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show good cause
for the Court to exercise its discretion under Local Rule
100.2.2(1) and therefore DENIES Plaintiff's request for
leave to serve parties electronically.
The Court FINDS AND RECOMMENDS That the District Court DENY
Plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of
Fees and DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint With Leave to
may authorize the commencement of any suit without prepayment
of fees by a person who submits an affidavit that the person
is unable to pay such fees. 28 U.S.C. Â§ 1915(a)(1). The Court
must subject each civil action commenced pursuant to Section
1915(a) to mandatory screening and order the dismissal of any
claim that it finds frivolous, malicious, or failing to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. Â§
1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127
(9th Cir. 2000) (stating that 28 U.S.C. Â§ 1915(e) "not
only permits but requires" the court to dismiss a Â§
1915(a) complaint that fails to state a claim); Calhoun
v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding
that the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Â§ 1915(e)(2)(B) are not
limited to prisoners).
the court may dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See
Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep't, 530 F.3d
1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008). Rule 8 requires that a complaint
contain "a short and plain statement of the grounds for
the court's jurisdiction." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1).
Rule 8 also requires that a complaint include "a short
and plain statement of the claim" and that each
allegation "be simple, concise, and direct."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), (d)(1). A plaintiff must allege
"sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570